Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail: AND-matching semantics across all query words in any order, and the fact that results carry dates, progress, location and a page URL.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste: the search semantics come first, filters second, return contents last. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes return fields, and it explains matching rules for a five-parameter search tool. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination/limit behavior or result ordering, which matters for a search tool capped at 25 results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully clarifies query semantics ('every word must match, any order') beyond the schema's example-only description. It also frames status/category/language as optional filters, reinforcing the zero-required-parameter design.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — searching curated events by words in the name or description — plus the optional filters. It never mentions the close sibling upcoming_events, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the two to pick when it wants a date-driven browse.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the described matching rules and filter list, which implies keyword-driven lookup rather than a general listing. There are no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use cues and no pointer to upcoming_events or get_event as alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.